On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> So we've had several rounds of discussions about simplifying replication >> configuration in general and the wal_level setting in particular. [0][1] >> Let's get something going. > > I looked at this patch, which I think has got enough consensus that you > should just push forward with the proposed design -- in particular, just > remove one of archive or hot_standby values, not keep it as a synonym of > the other. If we're counting votes, I prefer keeping hot_standby over > archive.
I see precisely 0 votes for that alternative upthread. I came the closest of anyone to endorsing that proposal, I think, but my preferred alternative is to change nothing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
